i) Claim requests becoming non-convergent by later submission of further requests – not admitted 

In T 2112/16 the appellant (proprietor) filed auxiliary requests 1 to 14 with the grounds of appeal, and later, but before the notification of the summons to oral proceedings, new auxiliary requests 1A and 4. The board exercised its discretion under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 not to admit auxiliary requests 1A and 4 into the proceedings. On auxiliary requests 2, 3 and 5 to 14, the board held that the sequence of the auxiliary requests had been changed during the course of the appeal proceedings due to the introduction of auxiliary request 1A, and this involved a material change in the focus of the claimed invention. The board took the view that the selected sequence of the auxiliary requests led to an evident broadening and lack of convergence in the requests. Such a change made after a party had presented its complete case did not meet the requirement for procedural economy set out in Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020. The board exercised its discretion under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 not to admit the auxiliary requests 2, 3 and 5 to 14 into the proceedings.

Likewise in T 1185/17 auxiliary requests 3 to 6, which had been filed with the grounds of appeal as auxiliary requests 4 to 7, were not admitted into the proceedings due to a new lack of convergence caused by the later filing of auxiliary requests 1 and 2. The latter were not taken into account pursuant to Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020.